Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
When there is a clear disagreement among reviewers or a procedural issue arises, the AC has the authority to ask reviewers to reconsider their opinions or even invite additional reviewers to participate in the evaluation.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
9/24/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedIt is the norm for reviewers not to respond during the rebuttal stage, and the content of the authors' response will enter the AC's decision-making purview.74% similarUnverifiedWhen a review combines a low score with high confidence and the criticism is unjustified, it amplifies the gap between the review opinion and the actual evidence, making it easier for the AC to identify it as a review quality issue.70% similarUnverifiedSimilar reviewing obligation rules exist in various forms at other top conferences, such as requiring corresponding authors or senior authors to handle a certain number of reviews.69% similarUnverifiedSome conferences have experimented with introducing meta-reviewer systems, open peer review, or reviewer incentive mechanisms to mitigate review quality issues, but no widely recognized systematic solution has emerged.66% similarUnverifiedWhen the Meta Reviewer and reviewers' opinions conflict, the Meta's opinion typically carries greater decision-making weight.66% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/945880API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/945880MCP
get_claim(id=945880)